"Vicarious goal
fulfillment."
You may not have heard of this phrase, but you may
unknowingly be guilty of doing it. Here is the idea behind the term: In a
recent New
York Times article, we
learned why otherwise healthy-eating people sometimes take a very unhealthy
u-turn on their diet. The psychology of why this occurs struck me that this
kind of similar self-defeating behavior in eating, can also make its way into
privacy-related decisions.
More so than ever before, restaurants and other venues have
begun to add healthy food options to supplement their classically unhealthy
offerings. The thought is that making nutritious alternatives more available
will lead customers to select the superior food choices. However, a number of studies have
shown that merely having but one healthy food option on a menu of unhealthy
choices cause people to both select the least healthiest option on the
menu, and yet feel still like they have fulfilled their goal of healthy eating -
even if they didn't choose the
health option. And, ironically, the study goes on to say, this consequence is
strongest for people with a high-degree of self-control. That is, people who should
know better.
Think this topic can't possibly relate to privacy? The parallels
are striking. Think about how the mere presence of the privacy policy on a
mobile app you use on your phone or tablet comforts, or how the policy on the
website you visit gives you a false sense of security that the company has a
privacy policy to begin with, and that they actually honor the actions outlined
in that policy. I have written about this before,
especially where we read that consumers outspokenly demand high levels of
privacy and strict adherence by businesses to the use of the customer data they
collect, yet their behavior in many cases blatantly contradicts what say they
want. (Trade your password
for a bar of chocolate anyone?)
Just like sex sells, so do the unhealthy food selections on
most menus, even if healthier options exist side-by-side. The restaurants say
that they only offer the people what they want, and it is not their dominion to
police people’s eating habits or modify bad habits. It is still a free country,
yes?
So why shouldn’t we take the same tact with companies,
browsers, applications or services that simply give the people what they want –
entertainment, free access, little or no costs apps, etc. – and their privacy be
damned? Does the notion of privacy hold more currency than a person’s health?
As long as there is no unfair or deceptive practices occurring, and there is
full disclosure on what is being done with the data, why shouldn’t people be
allowed to act in a manner that is not in their best self-interest? We do it every
day with food, tobacco, alcohol and spandex already. Should privacy be a loftier
goal? If it is, then it should be achieved directly, and not vicariously. Like
seeing a Cobb salad on the menu, but ordering the Double-Double Bacon
Cheeseburger.
